Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

s1ngular1ty2 t1_iwpsdlb wrote

This article is very bad. It is mostly incorrect about many things. I wouldn't put much stock in their "theory".


Chimalez t1_iwpu0o4 wrote

What is it incorrect about?


s1ngular1ty2 t1_iws95xf wrote

We are pretty sure dark matter is matter, which is why it's called dark matter not dark information. We have many observations that suggest it is a particle of some kind. We have decades of discoveries that prove dark matter is real. Just because we haven't detected the particles themselves yet doesn't mean it isn't still matter. It can be weakly interacting matter we can not detect because it barely interacts with other matter. It can be exotic large mass particles we can not produce in our colliders because they are limited to lower energies and lower masses. There are many reasons why we may not be able to detect it with any means we have and yet it still exists and is still matter.

This article is laughable at best.


QVRedit t1_iwsc79l wrote

The reason it’s been called ‘dark matter’ is because we can’t see it, but it has gravity, like matter does, hence ‘dark matter’.

The article suggests this might be information, based on an equivalency.

We generally here very little about the information content of the universe, but clearly it must exist somewhere, somehow.


s1ngular1ty2 t1_iwsdah9 wrote

The leading theories for what it is are mostly particle based theories. That was my point. I understand it exhibits gravity. That is the sole reason we know it exists.

There are custom made particle detectors all over the Earth trying to find dark matter every second of every day. They are giant contraptions which are almost solely searching for dark matter by many different means. It is one of the most active fields of study right now because understanding what dark matter is, is super important and will probably win you a nobel prize if you figure it out.


fullawe t1_iwspylj wrote

The team behind this have proposed a pretty easy and sensible experiment. The article is terrible, but the theory of information having weight is pretty cool.

The idea that the probability chart for any given fundamental particle, has physical weight. The probability chart for any given particle interaction becomes a bit, and they have proposed an information 'particle' size.

The experiment is shooting an electron beam into positrons at CERN (through a moderator), and measuring the outcome. The team has proposed an expected outcome to support their findings.